Approaching The Great Divide...

Once again I come face-to-face with the ugly truth of what ‘Conservative’ has now come to mean in a post-September 11 world. Last week it was Ann Coulter mocking ‘ragheads’ at CPAC. This week it’s Michelle Malkin – she of the "stirring" condemnation of Coulter – also playing The Muslim Card for prestige and profit. I have to admit Malkin’s performance in the Dubai Ports World “controversy” has shocked me, although I cannot for the life of me, given Malkin's normal output, understand why.

In the grand scheme of things this was, sadly, to be expected.

As I have detailed here, the “controversy” presently raging – the fires of which Malkin has been gleefully stoking – is nothing more than a political contrivance. When Senator Schumer, in a display of breathtakingly cynical opportunism, charged that the sale of Peninsular and Oriental to Dubai Ports World would endanger the national security by leaving six major U.S. ports in the hands of a company owned by foreign nations, he was well aware that neither Peninsular and Oriental nor Dubai Ports World have any responsibility for the security of any U.S. ports. The only thing he wasn’t aware of at the time was that Peninsular and Oriental was a company owned by foreign nationals, and that those six ports were already in the hands of “foreigners”.

Not that it mattered much. Everyone from Senator Clinton to Senator Santorum understood what was going on... This is an election year. The issue was never "foreigners". The issue was Arabs, and by extension, Muslims. It was time to play The Muslim Card. It was time to ignore the reality that port security is in the hands of the federal, state and local governments and pretend that somehow having Dubai Ports World owning six port operating leases rendered every security agency in the country – from the Coast Guard to the Port Authority of New York – helpless. Senator Schumer, as well as Senators Clinton, Santorum and Frist (to name only a few) have decided to ignore the complex reality of U.S. national security and, instead, try to score some political points by indulging in the most blatant sort of racial (and religious) profiling on the most massive of scales.

And there’s Michelle Malkin – she of Roger L. Simon's New Media, and the darling of "respectable" Conservativism – cheering them all on.

Michelle Malkin is, no doubt, well aware of the basic facts of this particular matter. She is intelligent enough and sophisticated enough to understand that port security is in the hands of four agencies in the Dept. of Homeland Security – including the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection – and the Transportation Dept., as well as a multitude of state and local agencies such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. She knows this and yet persists in the fiction that the transfer of a port operating lease from one foreign company to another foreign company will impact the level of security at the six ports involved in the sale of P&O.

Why is that?

Why does she choose to forego providing the appropriate factual background to this story on her web site? Is that not the internet journalist’s raison d'être? Is it unreasonable to expect a professional journalist/pundit to detail her specific objections within the framework of how port security actually works? Why does she choose to sprinkle her posts with nothing more than a motley collection of anti-U.A.E. factoids and the superficial pontifications of selected commentators? Why does she studiously avoid any attempt at sophisticated, factual and rational analysis?

Why indeed?

And why does she abandon the President she claims to support and decide to make common cause with Senators she claims to loathe? Does Michelle Malkin expect us now to believe, after years of posts and millions of words centered on the irresponsibility and perfidy of Democrats such as Schumer and Clinton, that she can seriously and soberly embrace this sort of crude election year posturing as responsible governance?

Again, Why?

The answer, in my view, is quite simple: Michelle Malkin, much like Ann Coulter, has come to understand that ‘Conservativism’ now means to many so-called Conservatives...

It means racial, cultural and religious animus.

It means welcoming and encouraging the ‘Clash of Civilizations’.

It means, ultimately, the offer of either subjugation or extermination to the ‘Other’.

Not that Malkin would be so crude as to lay these particular cards on the public table. No doubt Michelle sees herself, as do so many of her brethren, as a moral soul. This isn’t about race or religion, she will no doubt claim. But, while she may protest at the antics of an Ann Coulter, the bottom line is that in her world (and Coulter's), the solution always devolves to nothing more than one less Muslim, or one less Arab... But in any event always one less of the ‘Other’.

That seems to be the 'Conservative's' only solution these days.

Were Michelle Malkin a serious Conservative – a moral Conservative – she would be working tirelessly to shred the bald hypocrisies of Senators Schumer and Clinton with the facts that rest before her. She would be urging both politician and public to resist the temptation of self-defeating acts of racial and religious demonization. She would be attempting to raise the tone and tenor of the debate with the injection of substance and sobriety. She would, in short, be attempting to appeal to what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”; compassion, tolerance and good will.

But Michelle Malkin will have none of it. Being either serious or moral in this matter holds no interest for her.

If one thing has emerged from Malkin’s anti-“Sellout” campaign, it is how much in common she has with Ann Coulter. Consider the self-importance she exhibits – the near-childish pride of mixing with the likes of Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton – and the cynical self-promotion – note the “This is going to make me” glee in each and every post. If her professional hustle differs from Coulter in any way, it is purely a matter of style... of taste.

In fact, the truth of the matter seems to be that matters of style and taste are the only things that separate the two. When Ann Coulter states that if “Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences”, she is in truth simply articulating a sentiment quietly shared by those such as Michelle Malkin. In the cold light of the Dubai Ports World “controversy”, it is clear that Coulter’s actual sin was to express that shared sentiment in terms somewhat cruder than Malkin is comfortable with. It was more a matter of professional standards, not moral ones.

If you doubt my judgment in this, simply examine the evidence: Michelle Malkin has not, at any point in her anti-“Sellout” campaign, submitted a single relevant fact or a bit of analysis to support the contention that having the operation leases of six U.S. ports pass from British hands to Arab hands presents a national security risk of any sort. She has ignored what facts are available to her, and presumed incompetence and/or inattention upon the efforts of the Administration without having a basis for doing so.

Why?

There can only be one answer: Michelle Malkin believes all Arabs (and by extension, Muslims) must be presumed to be hostile. It must be presumed that no Arab or Muslim can be trusted. They are the enemy. All of them. And since she provides no factual or rational basis for her objections, I can only presume they are fueled by the non-factual and the irrational: Racial and religious hatred.

What other explanation makes sense?

And this, unfortunately, has become the reality of much of what ‘Conservativism’ has become. The intellectual foundations of neo-conservative thought, based as they are in the "better angels of our nature", have been appropriated to justify what is little more than neo-imperialism. With Malkin’s behavior over Dubai Ports World as a backdrop, can one seriously argue her commitment to democracy for the Arab, the Muslim, the ‘Other’ in Iraq is genuine? How can one be serious about offering democracy when it means democracy (and freedom of action) to those one fears and loathes?

I am afraid we are coming to the moment of the Great Divide within the Conservative Movement. It is increasingly apparent to me that a substantial number of ‘Conservatives’ have never shared the noble impulse of President Bush’s vision of a democratic, secular and prosperous Muslim world. Instead, that has been co-opted by those whose vision begins and ends with the application of brute force, and who have come to the belief that subjugation or destruction are the only option available to us when dealing with the 'Other'... Our final solution, as it were.

Comments

[GMF]

Really well said, Dennis.

$5 to the first person who can point us to someone saying you've gone over to the left because of this post.

[Scott Ferguson]

Ken, I don't think you are looking at the raw political component. American xenophobia toward Arab states has been a phenomenon since the oil embargo of 1973. For your average congressman, blocking the sale is a no-brainer. I wrote about it on my blog. For Bush, he has no more political capital to spend, and he's not up for reelection, so he can take unpopular positions. It's a rare win for all the partisan players, even though I agree, it's probably the wrong thing to do.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[Kilfarsnar]

I agree, this is a great post! Quite insightful. As you suggest in the article, this should not be too surprising coming from Malkin or other "conservatives". But I believe it is consistent. This rage agaist the "other" forms the base of support for Bush's policies. From the GWOT to gay marriage to "values" issues. This is just a matter of the monster turning against it's creator, as monsters always eventually do. The Bush operation has encouraged and profited from this mindset since the 9/11 attacks. Now they are on the receiving end of it.

I too would like to see more reasoned and substantive discussion of this issue and many others that concern our country. But TV "news" is not the place to look for it. People like Malkin and Coulter, like the Bush Administration, have an agenda. They are interested not in finding the best path, but in pushing that agenda.

[salvage]

Spot on, give your brain a high-five!

[jonst]

I detest people like Malkin and Coulter. And the cynical role they are playing now, and indeed always. But that aside, are you trying to tell me that who controls the operations of the ports is not deeply involved in the security of the ports as well? It's impossible to completely divorce security from operations. That's just common sense. I've seen it first hand I've worked on the ports in Portland Maine. However, I'm not offering that observation as a reason to not go through with the sale.

The reason I would not go through with the sale is because I don't want other governments controlling the operations in our ports. Period. And if the govt controls the company, either in a formal, or informal manner, its enough for me to kill the sale. Second, I would not have the UAE, in particular, take over the operations. It has nothing to do with Arab bias. If I WAS in favor of foreign control of the operations of our ports I would have no problem with the Turks, or the Moroccans, for instance, running the operation. But as I noted I don't want any ports to be under foreign ownership. As to the UAE....I have noted that you still have made no effort to respond to one commenter who offered a rather detailed account (with links to the stories) of the intimate dealings between some members of the UAE royal family and OBL between the years 1994-2001 in Afghanistan. His allegations were at least worthy of some comment. Do you believe they did not happen? Fine, say it. Do you believe if they did happen they are meaningless and should be dismissed? Ok fine...say that. But I repeat, in my opinion they are worthy of some comment. Because, I would argue evidence suggests, there is ample evidence of dealings between the ELEMENTS of the Royal Family and OBL. Not just this stuff in Afghanastan.

[Jussi Hämäläinen]

In case it makes you feel any better (I doubt it),most of the liberal bloggers seem to be just as bad as Ms. Malkin on this issue.

Steve Gilliard:

"I have no problem with Arabs. I have a problem with people who enable terrorists. Why doesn't President Bush.

Hell, just because 9/11 was planned in Dubai, they couldn't mean us any harm, right? Maybe the North Koreans could run the West Coast ports."

Kevin Drum aside,that pretty much sums up most of the debate on the Left side.What a proud moment for American liberals - out-race-baiting Rush Limbaugh.

[fundamental]

"The Bush operation has encouraged and profited from this mindset since the 9/11 attacks."

The Left has depicted Bush as encouraging and profiting from this kind of mindset, but actually he has consistently been fighting against it and keeping it at bay. Malkin and her ilk are shedding their chains so to speak, but their doing it with Schumer and Clinton and other Bush antagonists. Dennis's last paragraph is right on. As a conservative this is a battle I relish. Will those on the Left battle those in their camp? Are they relishing the opportunity? Or is it another time to march with ANSWER. I welcome working with the Left as they take on theirs while we take on ours. I found the Wall Street Journal editorial refreshing. Allies abound in the VRWC.

p.s. If you think "this rage agaist the "other" forms the base of (my) support for Bush's policies" such as the WOT, or dare I say Dennis's, then you are sadly mistaken.

[wxjames]

Jussi, dig yourself ! Just because 9/11 was planned in Dubai ? Just because cartoons were published in Denmark ! Don't you get it ? Denmark is no more the great enemy of Mohammed than Dubai Ports World is a major arms and explosives smuggling front.
We have an air base in the UAE. They may not even believe any of the Islamofacist bullshit. But a small country, in the Persian Gulf can hardly draw too much attention to themselves. I choose to trust the president in this matter. He has a war to run and another apparent war waiting in the same wings. Right there. Right where moderate, trusted Muslims of Dubai allow us to keep an active airforce.
This is not about security, it's about the normal give and take of international politics.

[neil]

It is increasingly apparent to me that a substantial number of ‘Conservatives’ have never shared the noble impulse of President Bush’s vision of a democratic, secular and prosperous Muslim world.

Hold on there, Dennis, time to back the truck up a bit. What makes you think this is President Bush's vision? Let's check the scorecard, shall we?

There are several Muslim dictatorships which have received unwavering support from Bush, including (gasp) the UAE as well as the Saudis. Meanwhile, what do we have in Iraq? Why, we overthrew a secular government to replace it with a theocratic one. But this, like freedom, isn't free -- it came at the cost of their infrastructure and economy, which has shrunk to pre-invasion levels.

Besides this, he has postured with such transparent dishonesty that the Muslim world can plainly see that the U.S. does not mean what it says about its vision, which is eagerly appreciated by anti-American actors as it provides an opening for an alternate explanation: that America is evil and wants to help the Jews destroy them.

I'm not saying that any of this stuff is done out of wickedness or anti-Muslim bias, although as above I can certainly understand how people outside the U.S. who believe this do not suffer much cognitive dissonance. What I am saying is that your 'grand vision' isn't worth a bucket of warm spit if your deeds don't back it up, whether you're President Bush making life worse for Muslims while saying he wants to make it better, or you're Michelle Malkin spreading hatred and suspicion of Muslims while saying she has nothing against them.

[FabioC.]

I basically agree with you Dennis, but I'll play the devil's advocate here:

It is certainly true that the port operator is in a good position to facilitate the ingress of all sort of nasty stuff, possibly hiring workers who are sympathetic to a certain cause.

Also, from a pragmatist standpoint there are conceivable future scenarios in which the only available option is do destroy them before thay can destroy us. No, I don't think that we are at that point, and I also think that is our moral duty (and less costly) to try a softer approach first.

[Dan from Madison]

One thing that may be missing here is the money component. As you, Dennis said about three months back Malkin has traffic and has to keep driving it now. If her traffic is based on fear or hate or just plain stupidity, she has to keep producing more of it. I actually have to wince reading her blog, one of the worst on the web hands down. And I used to read it daily because she used to be a good and creative writer. For shame.

[fundamental]

Neil, can you grant the Middle East was a bipartisan cluster-fuck for more than half a century. The appearance of stability in fact enabling all sorts of evil. Bush reversed, wisely or not, I'm open to argument on this point, but I have my leanings, the consensus of both parties, and I don't buy for a second that Muslims in Afganistan are worse off because of it. That Iraqis are worse off because of it--Or at the very least have been given an opportunity to make themselves better off. An opportunity the Kurds have taken. As have many others. You condemn Bush for not being able to wave a magic wand and end all tyranny in one fell swoop while at the same time wishing the Iraqis would be condemned again to Sadaam's tyranny, since they were so much better off. As was Lebanon of course. And Libya. And everywhere else. Being outside of America myself, have been for my whole adult life, I find it interesting how compelled you are by the picture painted by "anti-American actors" who have ordained themselves the representatives of the Muslim street. And their Western enablers. In fact, deeds are so plentiful, and at such a pace, that hysteria has set in by those elites who feel themselves being run over, your "cognitive dissonance" is in fact hysteria by draconian elites and their enablers whose propaganda is happily echoed by some as representing how the vast "other" thinks. Iran and Hamas and all the rest is what happens when great change is being made. Things come out into the open. The stakes become clear. Again, a good argument can be made against Bush I'm sure. But I reject the "lacking in deeds" and "worse off" lines of attack. Get too caught up in the moment and you'll fail to appreciate how what has happened may appear to those looking back at these times a few hundred years from now. The verdict is out, but deeds have been a plenty.

[Guesst]

D, you asked, Why does she choose to forego providing the appropriate factual background to this story on her web site?

Malkin has been encouraged by her handlers to create controversy, even if it means ignoring facts, because it's a proven formula for successful media whores.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, Goldberg, O'Reilly, Coulter, and the like prove that being confrontational, outrageous, misstating facts, etc- brings viewers, media attention, appearances, and lucrative book deals.

They've all gotten rich, and it hasn't been because they stuck to the facts, as much as pandered to the antiabortion antichoice Christian crowd.

[Hank]

Along Guesst's line of thought.... Kudos to Moore and Chomsky and a thousand other notable lights for making their millions. Where there is a niche....

[Mike]

"Forgo". The word is "forgo." E.g., in the foregoing discussion, we considered whether we should forgo (and forsake) reality for purposes of political gain. This has been a a public service message from the Coalition of Retentive Bastards.

I will not forgo the observation that the Dockworkers' Union -- Longshoremen, Stevedores, whatever you want to call them -- is still king on the ports. Dubai CAN'T just hire people to work on the docks. The union wouldn't let them, and the union wouldn't trust the newbies. Not that that would even matter what with the Federal alphabet soup inspecting every freaking container one way or another, both at the point of departure from (wherever), and at the point of arrival in the United States.

[Guesst]

ps, DtP: I suspect plenty of people on the Right (and maybe even a few on the left) agree with your commments about Malkin and her ilk, but most seem reluctant to criticize, because they are part of the cabal, or are hoping to be.

Have most of the RW bloggers always been a bunch of pandering pussies, or is this a recent development?

[elemental]

First of all, Unbelievable post - I feel, and I am not exaggerating, and don't laugh, as if I'm reading one of the great litterateurs of our day. I don't fall prey to hero worship to often, but this series of posts has been brilliantly astute.

As an avowed leftist, socialist, Chomsky-ite, I have to say the opinions coming from the left are embarrasing, repugnant and uneducated. They range from obvious, and admitted, political haymaking to sheer ignorance and fear.

Those on the right that think we on the left would not call out our own are incorrect. The root of this problem, for me, is Schumer, Clinton, Atrios, Randi Rhodes, et al.. I don't give a flying F that Santorum, Frist, Malikins, Coutler or Johnson jump on this train because I have no expectations of them to represent what I consider the moral high ground that I have come to expect from this country.

The problem is that except for a very few, most of the American political left is falling for this bullshit. Those of us who can maintain rational thinking in light of an opportunity to bash Bush are far and few between. Its too bad the majority of the critics of this deal can't pull their heads out of the asses long enough to learn that Dubia is becoming the economic crossroads for Europe and Asia, and it is vital to our national security and ecomomic interest to be involved with Europe, Asia, and the Middle East co-operatively if we plan on mainting our lofty standards in the world.

[fundamental]

Nice post Elemental. For clarification, I didn't mean to imply you wouldn't call out those on your side. In fact I was confident you would. Thus happy you did.

I'm wondering how many people on both sides of the aisle we can agree on being a part of the problem. Your list in your next to last paragraph is a good start I think. I wonder who would be left in the end. I imagine over McChimpyBush himself we wouldn't reach a consensus, so with due respect to our host and his quest for a peaceful site where all kinds can co-exist, maybe we shouldn't start.

Anyway, Dennis gets results across the political spectrum!!

Outta here. Party On.

[Guest]

Just got back from a rare noon-time trip. While flipping channels I heard Limbaugh talking about this. He didn't seem to have any problems with it. Why is his name being mentioned in this comment thread as one of the knee-jerk obstructionists?

[neil]

It seems like there is a lot of bad things about the port deal that have nothing to do with the religious or ethnic identities of the company's executives. But would the media have paid attention if it wasn't for the feeding frenzy started by Playing the Muslim Card?

[DennisThePeasant]

Neil-

That's quite a novel justification for Republicans and Democrats, the Left and the Right, misrepresenting and/or withholding facts, racial/religious profiling and uninformed and unthinking partisanship. You are to be congratulated, I guess.

But it's still racism and intolerance...

[wxjames]

Both Limbaugh and Hannity jumped ugly against the 'port security' falling into the hands of the UAE. Now that they heard that Bush will veto.......oooooohh.......both Limbaugh and Hannity and a bunch of people Dick Cheney shot at will support the port short retort.

[elemental]

Thanks fundamental - I for one, am elated to have found common ground with the rational right.

neil, good point, and obviously not since the ports were/still are owned by an English company, yet not a peep from Lou Dobbs or Jack Cafferty on our impending doom, despite the fact that London obviously has some terrorists too (ones that grew up there).

Let me add on that a lot on the left who are using this to bash Bush are trying to make the claim that the UAE is guilty of Human Rights Abuses, which is based in nothing more than Arab cliche. They should read an A.I. report or the State Dept. report before making accusations about a country that is pretty similar to us and other countries in terms of human rights conditions, and they are also very responsive to complaints of human rights abuses.

[elemental]

Er, well maybe not very responsive, but they want to protect their reputation so they do acknowledge them and respond.

[Cameron]

DtP, I have no doubt that you're a conservative, but you sound a bit more like a traditional conservative than a neocon. What I've read by self-described neocons very explicitly favors imperialism; it's just that they assume that America can somehow make this palatable to the countries it plans to rule.